User talk:Batmanattack33

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Hello, Batmanattack33, and welcome to Uncyclopedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If not, the door's right over there... no, a little more to your left... yeah. Anyway, here are a few good links for people like you:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being an Uncyclopedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) or use the "sign" button () above the edit box. This will automatically produce your name and the date.

At Uncyclopedia, writing articles is not a requirement, but it certainly is a fun and easy way to express your creativity. To write an article, it's recommended that you start it in your userspace (for example, User:Batmanattack33/Article about stuff) so you can edit it at your leisure. If you decide to create it in the cold world of mainspace, make sure it is in accordance with the policies laid out above, and if you're not done put the "Work-In-Progress" template - {{construction}} - onto it as well.

If the current colonization doesn't suit your fancy, then browse our rewrite and idea categories. We have lots of articles just sitting around for someone to improve, so don't be afraid - dive right in!

If you need help, ask me on my talk page, ask at the Dump, or ask an administrator on their talk page. Additionally, the Uncyclopedian Adopt-a-Noob program is there to bring experienced editors straight to you. Simply leave a message on an adopter's talkpage to join. Again, welcome! ~SirFrosty(Talk to me!) 08:03, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

Alright mate, I noticed that you reverted Magic man's revert of your edit to the page. Simply undoing it again isn't really the way to go about things, speak on the talk page and make the case for your change or contact Magic man here. If we just undo each other edit wars quickly ensue, people get banned, feelings get hurt and we lose good writers. I'm not saying his edit is better than yours, or that he must be right, but that since he clearly disagrees with your change that you both talk about it. If he doesn't reply or is hugely against the change then come back to me, or another administrator and we'll make a final decision based on what has been said. I hope that sounds fair. Any questions, feel free to ask me. --Chiefjustice32X 21:08, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

So, your article People with little or no talent. It's a start, and I also appreciate your working on it after the ICU was added. Things that it is missing are first and foremost length. It's not a full article, so far merely a collection of lines, formatted into a descriptive list. While I'm on the topic of lists, they're something we've been trying to discourage on Uncyclopedia for a while, though not to extreme success I must admit, because they encourage people to create articles without putting a tremendous amount of thought into them, instead opting to take an easy way and list things out, and are also not very encyclopedic, which is something else we strive for, being a parody of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias. The way I'd suggest going about this would be to divide it into sections, for example dividing it up by types of occupation, or "types of" no talent. "Talentless People In The Media", "Lack Of Talent Abroad", "Political Untalentedness", etc. are all examples of header titles. After that, changing things from a list to paragraphs with descriptions of things would go a long way toward the "encyclopedic" aspect. For formatting help you can take a look at any old featured article (Topaz, for example) and then click the edit button to look at the page's code if there's anything you need clarification on how to do. As long as you don't click the save button you'll be able to look at the entire code of the page and copy whatever you like without having to worry about messing anything up or anything like that.

The second thing would be to add in some other jokes besides just openly saying "X celebrity is horrible." We do get that X celebrity is horrible. But it's not enough of a joke to sustain an entire article, especially if it's essentially being repeated over and over again for each entry on the list. My personal suggestion would be to flesh out the idea a little by giving some background (in the paragraphs I mentioned) on the actual idea of talentlessness (which functions as a joke in itself because seriously, who needs a rundown of the history of talentlessness?), and society's justification for allowing these sorts of hacks to become so popular and well-regarded. Further, a little absurdity thrown in is always nice in the case of a topical article so as not to come across as entirely overbearing and critical. I often find the occasional stream-of-consciousness ramble to do the trick, fine-tuned for the right effect of course.

Finally and lastly is originality. I've literally read all of the jokes in your article before. This shouldn't be taken as an insult, more as a check. I think everybody starts out essentially by writing a lot of those jokes (Russel Brand is a heroin addict, X celebrity is horrible, Elmo is a pedophile, etc.), but the problem is that they've been beaten into the ground excessively and are not funny anymore. The one phrase I always like to remember people of is that "comedy is hard." It really is. That's not to say that people shouldn't try comedy, or that it can't be fun. To the contrary, if you're not having fun you're doing it wrong. But it is hard, and it does take a lot of time and work. It takes proof-reading, rewriting of jokes, and checking yourself to make sure you're writing something that isn't going to make people say "*groan* This again?" I can give you further advice on this particular area if you'd like, but as is I don't want to make this message any longer than I already have, and I've covered the important points so far. I hope this helps. -RAHB 16:47, June 7, 2012 (UTC)